Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Monday, May 20, 2013

Ghost Scandals in the Sky

From the New York Post Toasties
****

Scandals are a'brewin' baby!Only these aren't really "scandals" of the scandalous variety. What we have here are distractions that are being perpetrated by the Republican party for no other reason than to deflect from themselves the damage that they are presently doing to this country. In a way it's kinda funny. Then again, in a way it's not. What's behind it all is the fact that there are certain grown men and women in America who can't accept the fact that there is a black man - and his even blacker family - who are living in the same house that was once inhabited by their sainted Ronald Reagan. Let us go over the for-instances, shall we?

The GOP's moronic quest to uncover any kind of controversy within the Obama administration reminds me of the old story of a little boy who was seen gleefully picking through a huge mountain of horse manure. When asked by his father why he was doing such a disgusting thing, the boy replied, "There's just gotta be a pony in here somewhere, Daddy!"

Four days ago the president of the United States held a joint press conference in the Rose Garden of the Executive Mansion with the prime minister of Turkey. It was raining. So rather than having the both of them standing there getting soaked to their skins, two military aids in dress uniforms held up umbrellas for them. As predictable as - uh - rain, within minutes the RIGHT WING SCREAM MACHINE went into overdrive:

HOW DARE HE HAVE A SOLDIER - ONE OF AMERICA'S BRAVEST AND FINEST - STAND THERE PROTECTING HIM FROM THE RAIN??? OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

Reality Check: With the exception of Jimmy Carter, there is a photograph of every president going all the way back to Grover Cleveland with someone holding an umbrella for him. In the first photographs taken of Lyndon Johnson the morning after be became president, an aid is holding an umbrella for him. No one ever made an issue of the existence of First Umbrella Handlers - that is until this president. I'm sure his race has nothing to do with it....Ahem.

For the record, I'm not a blind supporter of President Obama. The man has been a huge disappointment to me in a few areas to be sure. But I'm smart enough to predict that history will record most of his failures as being the result of an obstructionist and, yes, racist congress. It's gotten so bad that some of these assholes are now talking openly about impeachment.

Bubbah!

As Bill Clinton found out the heard way fifteen years ago, the kooks, criminals and halfwits who long ago hijacked the Republican party are desperate to find demons where none exist. Their only recourse is to manufacture them. When they couldn't unearth anything impeachable in Bill and Hillary's Whitewater dealings, Ken Starr dredged up a pathetic intern by the name of Monica Lewinsky.

That is sort of like what is happening today with the latest scandal du jour. The Internal Revenue Service was looking into groups that are notoriously and militantly anti-taxation? Really? Gee, I wonder why! Most of this activity was limited to the Cincinnati office - a place where I am sure the president doesn't think about too often or have much jurisdiction over. None of that matters at all. The Republicans are determined to bring down this administration by any means necessary. The well being of the American people mean not a thing to them. This is not a state secret, folks. Mitch McConnell said within weeks of the inauguration of 2009 that his number one priority would be that Obama be a one-term president. To hell with everything and everyone else.

Chris Stevens

After the attacks on an American outpost in Benghazi and the killings of four people there including Ambassador Chris Stevens last September, another "scandal" erupted immediately. Here's what it was: whether or not Obama properly labeled it a "terrorist attack". In fact he did. When it soon became embarrassingly obvious that that little non-controversy had no legs to stand on, the focus was shifted to a series of e-mails that went back-and-forth between the embassy and the White House. It appeared that the president's people were trying to suppress information because of the upcoming election. We now know that those e-mails were paraphrased and edited in such a fashion as to make Obama look as corrupt and incompetent as possible. The demons of Benghazi are rapidly vanishing - like magic - into thin air. We'll find out the entire story (if any) soon enough. One can't hide from history.

Show me a person who is seriously alarmed by these conjured-up "scandals" and I'll show you someone who isn't paying attention - or who is watching way-too-much Fox Noise. That's not to imply that there isn't policy to be reassessed or personnel to discipline, but let's put things in their proper perspective, okay? To refer to this administration (as many Republicans are curiously doing) as "Nixonian" is bit over the top, don'cha think? Comparing Barack Obama to Dick Nixon makes about as much sense as comparing the sniffles to an advanced case of terminal brain cancer. Let's get a grip here.

Warren G. Harding

We're being told that these latest snafus in the Obama story are the "worst" scandals in the history of the republic. As if Harding's Teapot Dome or Nixon's Watergate or Reagan's Iran Contra - or Dubya's entire eight-year-reign - were mere blips on the radar. No one with even a remedial grasp of history would take such idiotic assertions seriously. Which leads me to the crux of the problem: The average American's knowledge of the story of the country they profess to love so well is pretty pathetic. Your representatives in Washington know this -otherwise they wouldn't make such ridiculous statements. A historical perspective is in order here, and long overdue. Comparing those presidential high crimes and misdemeanors to what might be going on - inside or outside the Obama White House - is beyond ludicrous.

Ten years ago the sitting president (Guess which one I'm talking about) offered his fellow countrymen and women cooked-up intelligence in order to get us involved in an illegal war. As a result, as many as a million people or more - many of them innocent children - lay dead today. Not only should that president have been impeached for what he did, he should at this moment be rotting in a federal prison. Where was the outrage then? No one but a handful of progressive writers and bloggers (yours truly included) was calling for his impeachment.

In the meantime watch with wonder and amazement as the United States spirals even further into the ideological cesspool. And the gods looked down and laughed.

Tom DeganGoshen, NYtomdegan@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED READING:

Lyndonby George Reedy

This is an unvarnished memoir of what it was like to work for Lyndon B. Johnson by the late George Reedy, the man who served as his press secretary for over a decade. LBJ was as skilled a politician who ever lived - and one mean bastard to work for - as Reedy demonstrates here.

111 Comments:

As always a great article but I must say its one that I find just a tad narrow minded. Have you seen or listened to the media on Obamas side lately such as this little dandy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/19/cbs-bob-schieffer-unleashes-white-house-official-w/ . You would have to admit Bob Schieffer has typically been more than fair to this current administration. I will be honest I know as well as you do that this will blow over because the media will allow it to but the issues, which in my opinion are serious, will not. But if it was a Republican administration regardless of skin color there would be blood shed i.e. Nixon.

People keep comparing these "trumped up" scandals to Nixon as though they were even in the same league. They aren't. Most of this stuff has been going on for decades except NOW, when there is a BLACK (yes I said it) Democrat in the White house they are suddenly some kind of felony. It's waste of time and MONEY from tha party that said they were abut honesty and fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps? Sure. But that's a far cry from evidence to levy such a charge. Off course there will be racism - and it goes both ways. But to claim a wide-spread coordinated conspiracy is not supportable. It's a weak "go to" when you have no other defense. It's predictable and worn-out. No one is listening anymore.

As for Clinton, how about "Marxist Philandering Lying Good 'Ol Boy". Not sure there was much concern about Kenyan birth or Muslim background.

Thanks for the kind words. I have always thought that if I had to lose my temper or be arrogant I have already lost the debate at hand.

Mozart are you suggesting that the loss of American lives in Benghazi, the admitted tampering by IRS agents and phone tapping reporters most of whom are or were favorable to Obama are " trumped up?' And for the record I do not believe nor did I mean to indicate the current circumstances are in the same class as the Nixon screw ups. But there is still time left in this administration to make Nixon look good.

If I were a true Obama supporter I would call for an independent investigation immediately to clear his good name. Any takers?

The answer to your question for Mozart is YES.He and Tom really believe that "the loss of American lives in Benghazi, the admitted tampering by IRS agents and phone tapping reporters most of whom are or were favorable to Obama are "trumped up?"Further, they really believe the reason for these trumped up charges are because Obama is black. I am afraid we are dealing with people who have so much invested in their rage vs. the GOP or anyone not as liberal as they are, that they are blind to reality and the truth.

I listed to Ed Schultz and Tom Hartmann on the radio today and watched Rev. Sharpeton last Friday. What you are reading from Tom and Mozart is almost word for word what was said on the subject shows I just listed. It looks like liberals are blind to their own failures.

The comparison Barack Obama to Dick Nixon is completely appropriate for comparing documents exposing war crimes on Wikileaks to the Pentagon Papers or Bradley Manning to Daniel Ellsberg.

These are equally huge issues as both cases document the nation's lurching away from it's purported core values and then persecute the person who illuminates the issue contrary to both the words and spirit of the constitution. Politicians who endorse these violations of the constitution should be branded as the enemies of the American citizens that they are and driven out of office. Sadly, they have cultivated majority in the public who are too apathetic to care.

Just wanted to say, Benghazi was NOT our embassy, it was a CIA outpost, designed for various secret and on-site activities, snd was not heavily fortified so as not to draw too much attention to its operations. If our very visible and active ambassador had not been visiting there when the attack came, and it is way across the country from our embassy in Tripoli, we would not have heard anywhere near as much about it, b/c the CIA would have hushed it up or swept it under the rug--which is what it tried to do, casting off blame on the State Dept. Now ironically "Benghazi" a hobby horse for the GOP, which has consistently cut funding for protecting our State Dept. posts abroad for years. It's time someone in the administration talked back, this whole thing has been blown up way out of proportion.

Swamped in controversies, President Obama and his slow-footed team are essentially telling the American public, “We’re not crooked. We’re just incompetent.”

The IRS targeting conservatives, the Justice Department snooping at The Associated Press, the State Department injecting politics into Benghazi, the military covering up sexual assaults, and the Department of Veterans Affairs leaving heroes in health care limbo – each of these so-called scandals share two traits.

First, there is some element of “spin," the cynical art of telling just enough of the truth to avoid political embarrassment. Obfuscation and demagogy, the dirty tools of political quackery that Obama pledged to purge from Washington, enjoy top-shelf status at his White House.

Second, there is almost comical bungling. While denying involvement in high crimes and misdemeanors, the Obama administration appears to be pleading guilty to lesser crimes of bureaucratic incompetence. But that is an unsustainable position for a president who wants Americans to believe again in the power and grace of good government, particularly as it relates to the implementation of Obamacare.

--IRS agents targeted conservatives. Their bosses lied about it for months.

--White House and State Department officials minimized their role in shaping initial explanations for the Benghazi attack.

--Military officers assigned to sexual assault prevention units are charged with sexual battery. The Pentagon’s own study finds that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012. It’s not a new problem.

--Despite a 40 percent increase in funding, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs cannot ease a backlog of cases. The typical wounded warrior waits more than 300 days for action on a claim. In major cities, the wait can be 642 days.

The backdrop to this parade of buffoonery is a decades-long decline in the public’s faith in government, a trend continued under Obama. Restoring the public’s trust in his governance is the only way Obama can survive the controversies with his agenda and legacy intact.

In interviews, allies of the White House privately suggested a few things Obama could do, including:

Appoint a bipartisan oversight board to oversee the implementation of Obamacare. There is no way around the fact that a vast majority of voters will not trust the IRS to implement the greatest piece of social legislation in decades. Before the tempests, Obamacare was unpopular and largely misunderstood by most Americans. The law’s success hinges on the government recruiting young adults into insurance pools. And polls show young adults are the least likely to trust government.

Layer the White House communication team with experienced crisis managers. As I wrote here last week, Obama needs to realize that the dedicated public servants in the West Wing are not getting the job done.

Apologize to the AP and announce a new policy for leaks investigations. The White House needs to punish people who leak classified information that endangers national security. But the scope of the snooping at AP combined with Obama's unprecedented zeal for leaks investigations raises doubts about his commitment to transparency and to an unfettered media. He has pursued more such cases than all previous administration combined, according to the Washington Post. The paper also reported that the administration spied on a Fox News reporter at the State Department. Again, this is a matter of trust.

Appoint a special prosecutor on the IRS. The last thing the country needs is another subpoena-powered fishing expedition like the Whitewater inquiries. But we might need a special prosecutor with a narrowly defined mission to investigate the actions and motives of IRS agents and their superiors. Is there a better way to restore the agency’s integrity? The administration investigating itself will not lift the cloud from Obama’s White House.

Tpm V, The incident in Benghazi was tragic, but hardy unprecidented or unexpected. Ot's happened under every modern president, but if you want someone to take responsibility, how about the GOP house who voted down funding for added security? The IRS has been targeting political groups since the NIxon administratin and what EXACTLY was the result of the current one? NONE was denied tax exempt status, NO ONE was even inconvenienced very much. These groups advocated NOT paying taxes, so go figure the IRS would check them out. The GOOP is very goiod at taking the mundane and turning it into a "scandal" )Obama's use of teleprompters or taking vacations are two key examples)

It is amazing how Orwellian Republicans have become. Took a bit longer than 1984. They say the IRS properly investigating groups abusing tax-exempt status is worst than criminal misconduct at the highest levels (both Nixon and the B-Actor). The one truly honest moment John Kerry had in his '04 campaign was when he was recorded saying the following "off-the-record": "These guys are the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen". Sad that he described virtually the entire Republican Party today.

I guess the I'd don't remember or, only found out about it when I read it in the papers isn't enough anymore. Now the IRS is taking the 5th!

WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

“She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course,” said a letter by Taylor to committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif. The letter, sent Monday, was obtained Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Taylor, a criminal defense attorney from the Washington firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, said that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation, and that the House committee has asked Lerner to explain why she provided “false or misleading information” to the committee four times last year.

Discussions between the White House and the Treasury Department on the investigation into the IRS's targeting of conservative groups focused on the possibility of public remarks from agency officials, White House press secretary Jay Carney confirmed Tuesday.

There was "discussion about the possibility of a speech" by Lois Lerner, who oversaw the IRS's work on tax-exempt groups, Carney said, and conversation about testimony by the acting commissioner of the agency and "what he would say" if asked about the issue.

Mark Childress, a deputy White House chief of staff, was the person who interacted with Treasury, Carney said. -------------------------------(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said Tuesday that a pro-life group in Iowa was told by an IRS agent that its application would not be approved until the group’s board of directors swore it would not protest Planned Parenthood.

“This comes directly from Iowa, one of my constituents attempted to establish 501(c)(3) charity called Coalition for Life of Iowa. She told my staff that an IRS agent told her ‘Your application’s ready to go. However, it will not be approved until you send a letter signed by your entire board under penalty of perjury saying that you will not protest at Planned Parenthood,’” Grassley said at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.---------------------------------Internal Revenue Service officials not only wanted a wide variety of information from the Albuquerque Tea Party’s application for non-profit status, it also wanted to know what contacts it had with people from other political organizations too.

That included an 83-year-old great-grandmother who was once held in a World War II internment camp, New Mexico Watchdog has discovered.

“I’ve always paid my taxes and everything,” Marianne Chiffelle told New Mexico Watchdog. “What I do think is, it doesn’t surprise me…because of this government we have at the moment.”

According to a review of documents conducted by the online news organization Politico, (in a story headlined “The IRS wants YOU — to share everything”), the IRS asked the Albuquerque Tea Party about connections to other groups, including “Marianne Chiffelle’s Breakfasts.”

That prompted us to do some digging.

It took New Mexico Watchdog less than an hour to learn that “Marianne Chiffelle’s Breakfasts” is not some restaurant chain, but a reference to the volunteer work of Chiffelle, a retiree who helps organize informal 9 a.m. meetings for members of the Bernalillo County Republican Party.

The group meets on Fridays at a Golden Corral restaurant. “We’ve had these meetings for a long time,” Chiffelle said. “It’s not a business.”

Chiffelle is a naturalized American citizen who was born in what was then called the Dutch East Indies, now known as Indonesia. Her father was an executive for Shell Oil and when World War II broke out Chiffelle was sent to a Japanese internment camp where she spent four years, from age 12 to 16.

National Public Radio reporter Ari Shapiro reports that liberal pundits were seen entering the West Wing:Spotted: @joshtpm @CapehartJ @ezraklein & other lefty columnists headed into the West Wing as a group. POTUS coffee? Carney meeting? Anyone?ORGetting their lies straight?

"NO ONE was even inconvenienced very much." Mozart

True the Vote, a Houston-based nonprofit dedicated to fighting voter fraud, has filed suit in federal court against the IRS, asking the court to grant its tax-exempt status (THREE years after applying) and seeking damages for unlawful actions taken by the IRS against the organization.

Catherine Engelbrecht, a member of the Harris County, Texas, tea-party organization King Street Patriots, founded True the Vote after serving as a poll worker during the 2008 elections. Observing how understaffed polling places seemed to encourage voter fraud, she established True the Vote to train poll workers to “true” the vote: “to research the voter rolls in their home districts and to report inaccuracies to their County and State, to identify instances of vote fraud, and to be able to serve as observers at the polls to assure the integrity of the vote.”

After filing with the IRS, Engelbrecht and her family’s small manufacturing business was audited by the IRS — and received unexpected scrutiny from OSHA, the ATF, and the FBI!!!

"It is amazing how Orwellian Republicans have become" Sean.And with good reason. Conservative vote suppression!!

More "NO ONE was even inconvenienced very much."Still believe that Mozart?

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demanded information about conservative groups’ college-aged interns, prompting outrage from one of the country’s top conservative activist organizations and leading one former intern to wonder whether his family’s pizza parlor would be endangered.

The IRS requested, in an audit, the names of the conservative Leadership Institute’s 2008 interns, as well as specific information about their internship work and where the interns were employed in 2012, according to a document request the IRS sent to the Leadership Institute, dated February 14, 2012.

The IRS requested:

“Copies of applications for internships and summer programs; to include: lists of those selected for internships and students in 2008.– In regards to such internships, please provide information regarding where the interns physically worked and how the placement was arranged.– After completing internships and courses, where were the students and interns employed?”

The Arlington, Virginia-based Leadership Institute is a conservative activist training organization founded in 1979 by Virginia Republican National Committeeman Morton C. Blackwell, the youngest elected delegate to the 1964 Republican convention that nominated Barry Goldwater. The institute was audited in 2011. As The Daily Caller has reported, at least two different IRS offices made a concerted effort to obtain the group’s training materials.

The Leadership Institute’s audit, which was conducted by the IRS’ Baltimore office and which ended with no determination of wrongdoing but cost the conservative group $50,000 in legal fees, only covered the year 2008, leading employees to speculate that the IRS’ primary interest was figuring out how the group operates during a presidential election year.

Oh, the humanity! Oh the poor, poor rich white "conservatives" who openly oppose taxes and Obama. (But not political in any way, mind you.)

All the bloodshed of the innocent tax protest groups, slaughtered by the IRS Gestapo! The horror of all the poor conservatives, oppressed and spied upon by the Department of Justice and tossed into concentration camps without charges or counsel! And the unmitigated evil of betraying national security and willful homicide at an intelligence gathering post in Libya. Woe upon the poor corporate media parrots who forgot they are supposed to mindlessly repeat White House propaganda! They betrayed our CIA!

What more proof do we need that Obama is a commie NAZI??

NOTHING like any of this happened under Bush/Cheney...Well, except for maybe the thousands of Americans and Iraqis killed because of false reasons for war...and the warrantless surveillance of Americans and free hand for telecoms and Feds for wire taps under Bush's FISA Amendment...and the IRS scrutiny of the NAACP...and the DOJ's surveillance of peace advocates...and the DOJ's practice of hiring only loyal "conservatives"... and outing a covert CIA operative for political reasons...and....

Naww!! None of that EVER happened.

Otherwise "good conservatives" would be angry at Bush/Cheney as much as they hate Obama.

And "good conservatives" would NEVER accuse Bush/Cheney of being commie NAZIs.

You and I have been fighting for the Progressive cause for a long time now.

I just want to say its time to get real with what is going on in the Obama administration.

Take Benghazi for instance. The emails coming out are showing that Obama and Hillary are a couple of liars about what happened that night in Benghazi. They knew what was happening in real time and knew it was a terrorist attack. Hillary talked a big game about handling an emergency during the Primary, but lets face it: Obama and Hillary crapped their pants and stuck their heads in the sand. They probably called Bill who came up with the slick idea of blaming it on a Youtube video. Hillary was slick to have Susan Rice make the rounds and lie rather than her since since she didn't want to have a bunch of videos of herself lying when running for President.

I just want to say that only a dumb pollock would believe what this President with no resume has to say anymore.

Yeah, when are you liberal loon balls going to admit Benghazi was the worst thing to ever happen to America!? And when are you liberal loon balls going to admit more Americans died in Benghazi than in Iraq?

And it's all because Obama lied about Benghazi. That's why Benghazi is the worst thing to ever happen to America. And Obama hates America and wants more things like Benghazi to happen. So he can lie about it. He's a Muslim death panel pusher you know. And because he lied about Benghazi, people in Benghazi died.

This is why he let Benghazi happen. Us real Americans know he lied about Benghazi because he hates America.

That's why Benghazi is the worst crime a president could ever commit. And Benghazi is a scary buzz word now, 'cause we like to repeat it over and over.

Unlike Bush, our greatest president ever, and a uniter not a divider, Obama lied and thousands died. I don't remember what the lie was, but Rush and Hannity say he lied, so it must be true.

It doesn't matter anyway, Obama and the liberals are all a bunch of liars and racists. Rush says it, so it must be true.

Obama the Marxist Muslim who hates America is sending his NAZI Gestapo IRS after all us "good conservatives". This is what we "good conservatives" say, so it must be true.

And "good conservatives" know Bush's war based on falsehoods, financial collapse, adding trillions in debt, rising unemployment, and warrantless surveillance of Americans "look like Sunday School" compared to the crimes Obama committed in Benghazi.

Know why? Because Obama the Black Marxist Muslim Death Panel guy hates America and is a racist.

Like all "good conservatives" we believe Rush when he said:

"You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."

Exactly! Like Benghazi, right? We can never forgive the Black racist Marxist Muslim for what he did in Benghazi. And then the Black racist Marxist Muslim lied all about Benghazi too.

And Benghazi is only part of the Black racist Marxist Muslim's plan to destroy America. 'Cause the Black racist Marxist Muslim hates America as all we "good conservatives" know.

He's just like a commie NAZI sending his IRS jack-booted thugs after "good conservatives" who want tax exemption for their anti-tax, anti-Black racist Marxist Muslim organizations that are in NO WAY political.

This may be worse than Benghazi. As soon as Rush and Hannity tell us it is worse than Benghazi, we're going to say IRS tax exemption reviews are worse than Benghazi.

This is the death of America that the Black racist Marxist Muslim has been plotting to accomplish.

NOTHING has been worse for America than IRS tax exemption reviews and Benghazi. Everything bad is Obama's fault. He caused the market crash in '08 as Bush helplessly watched.

We're also sure ACORN stole the election and the Black racist Marxist Muslim might just be the anti-Christ.

If Benghazi isn't proof the Black racist Marxist Muslim is the anti-Christ, then we don't know what is.

I know I’m supposed to shut because I was told to by a “good conservative” but I’m sure he would understand if my topic is Benghazi.

Turns out Petraeus had something to do with the Benghazi talking points that we “good conservatives” demonized Susan Rice for uttering.

“We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired” by anti-American demonstrations elsewhere “and evolved” into assaults against “the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”

OMG! It’s like Petraeus betrayed us. “General Betrayus” is what those traitors at moveon.org said. And they were condemned by congress for their treason.

The long, rambling diatribes are rather old and worn. I'm to the point of ignoring them. If you were a conservative, Tom would be crying "troll" by this point.

Here's the deal. Every sitting president undergoes intense scrutiny by the opposition and gets unfair accusations leveled against him. Part of the game. Usually there's a mixture of truth and fiction and some of us try our best to discern. The vast majority simply filter through partisan glasses and jumpt to conclusions. Whether Benghazi or IRS are unfair, I don't know. None of us will evey know the REAL stories, I assure you.

The internet age has duped us all into thinking we know more than we do - and we run with it. I term it "internet epistemology". It has destroyed true debate for the most part. In reality (I believe) the internet has served to perpetuate falsehood and speculation exponentially, while the truth remains woefully scarce.

Harley,Right. It's fine when "Good conservative" dittohead Anonymous/Morre/Stivic does it out of contempt and hate. But parody of such contempt and hate are "long, rambling diatribes" and are "rather old and worn".

You seem to have a lot more tolerance of certain "long, rambling diatribes" over others.

Just sayin'.

I respect your wanting to be reasonable and to understand and explain the polarization of politics. Yes, the internet feeds into it. You may also want to examine the rather old and worn myth of of the "liberal media" mentality, talk radio, and FOX(R) as part of the problem.

I do not recall the president asking to be forgiven for his failure at Benghazi, so why should he be forgiven?Please explain what you believe conservatives should forgive him of?

Further if you have been reading this blog u would know that Stivic is hardly a conservative based on his past quotes. If looked at his profile, you would be hard pressed to believe anything other than what he just posted.

"E.W. Jackson, a black pastor and attorney with a reputation for being outspoken and bombastic, also once blasted fellow African-Americans for their “slavish devotion” to the Democratic party in a self-produced “message to black Christians” he posted to YouTube last year.

----

“The Democrat Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was,” Jackson said in the video. “And the Democratic Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”

Well, Jiff, my purpose is not to spew hate, as it were, but to get people to see my point of view. I don't go onto conservative sites to rile the readers up and deflect the message - which is the accepted definition of "trolling" as I know it. I always post a link to this blog on progressive, left-leaning websites and blogs. I plead guilty. For the record, anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, can post on this site without the fear of being deleted. I welcome the debate.

Tom, In your defense, not that you need it or have asked for it from me, you are very fair and do allow different points of view expressed on your blog. All in response to your left leaning view point. Thank you for upholding our right to free expression, and free speech!

What I find confusing is if you want to share your view points and if you believe in diversity, why aren't you going to conservative websites and expressing your different views and enter into debate?

Why would not agreeing with a post define someone as a troll, when you said yourself that you "welcome the debate"? If disagreeing with your views makes someone a troll, then there sure a lot of trolls in court rooms, seats of governments and debate classes.

It seems to me that the term "troll" has come to mean someone who disagrees with a point of view expressed on a blog in a manner that is not possible to defeat with logic, or reasoning or alternative workable ideas. Instead of changing your point of view, and admitting same, the other poster is labeled a troll as a way of dismissing the impact of their position and avoiding having to deal with the effects of their post on your position.

Just as the term Faux News is meant to dismiss anything that is sourced from Fox News, even if it turns out to be the truth. Like in the IRS scandal, the violation of AP and other reporters civil rights. Fox reported this happening before it was picked up by the rest of the news media. Now that the rest of the news media is reporting it, does that mean they have all become FAUX News?

Thanks for laying this all out in plain and simple English. I agree with your comments 100 per cent. If the members of Congress were truly interested in doing something (anything) fruitful, besides continuing to perpetuate faux Scandal-gates of the day, imagine how much better off the citizens they're supposed to be serving would be.

"A new book out in Germany reveals how President Kennedy was a secret admirer of the Nazis.

The news comes embarrassingly close to a visit being paid to Berlin next month by President Obama - one week before 50th anniversary commemorations of JFK's memorable 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech pledging US solidarity with Europe during the Cold War.

President Kennedy's travelogues and letters chronicling his wanderings through Germany before WW2, when Adolf Hitler was in power, have been unearthed and show him generally in favour of the movement that was to plunge the world into the greatest war in history

If George W Bush's administration audited you because of the moonbat shit you write, you would consider that scandelous. What would you think if W tapped your family's phones because you are left wing lunatic???

So what prison are you incarcerated in? What were you convicted of? Tax evasion? Fraud? Perjury? Obstruction of justice? Some other Republican crime? You should tell the bleeding heart liberals here so they can help you appeal your unjust imprisonment.

Racism was brought into this thread by Harley: Must be racism and not partisan politics-as-usual.

Go up and see.

So for perspective I presented:

Or is Rush correct? "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people."

"You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."

– Rush “Not a Racist” Limbaugh

Well? Do you agree with him?

Chuck Less, you sound a lot like Dave Dubya, always playing the race card!

Who’s REALLY playing the “race card”? Not Rush and his “good conservative” Republican fans? No, of course not! How dare anyone suggest it.

"When you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama."

- John “Not a Racist” Sununu

“My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people -- not all of them, but most of them -- who are still basing their positions on race. Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists, and the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin, and that's despicable.” - Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Colin Powell Aide

Hmm. Funny how a guy in prison knows more about Republicans than a Republican. Care to explain?

I happen to like Dave Dubya, and hope he doesn’t mind my using his ever-so-true “FOX(R)”. Love it. I wonder why he isn’t posting more often. Is he in prison with you?

Thanks Tom, Its too bad that the new gestapo in the IRS does not share your view.

Attaboy. Condemn ‘playing the race card” (So what if Rush plays it) and defend the racists.

It’s funny how you played your NAZI card in your previous sentence. Is that what you call fair and balanced?

You are entertaining, just like the famous “entertainer”, Rush “Not a racist” Limbaugh.

The links between a nonprofit promoting President Obama’s healthcare law and the White House have created an “air of expectation” that insurers will contribute to the group, according to an insurance industry official.

Current and former administration officials have taken on leadership and fundraising roles for Enroll America, a nonprofit aiming to make sure people sign up for new coverage options. As the ties grow deeper, the organization has come to feel like “just an arm of the administration,” said one official who works closely with insurers.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has already come under fire from congressional Republicans because she has raised money for the organization.

They say it puts inappropriate pressure on insurers, who will need the department’s approval to sell their products through a federally run insurance exchange in more than half the country.

“Companies and organizations should never be pressured for money because it sends the message that contributions are necessary to secure favorable regulatory decisions — creating a ‘pay to play’ environment — or to avoid regulatory reprisals,” Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee said in a recent letter to Sebelius.

Enroll America was created by some of the Affordable Care Act’s most ardent supporters, with a newly targeted mission of promoting enrollment in the law’s new insurance exchanges.

"This weekend, Virginia Republicans found their candidate for lieutenant governor in E.W. Jackson, a Chesapeake, Va. pastor who has compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan and also suggested that black Americans are being enslaved by the Democratic Party.

“It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat[ic] Party,” Jackson, who is African American, said in a 2012 YouTube video. “Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat[ic] Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”

“The Democrat[ic] Party has created an unholy alliance between certain, so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions,” he added."

Damned straight Obama gets the blame, after all he is the president, and has been for over 4 years now! Or are you trying to forget?

Fact is you again have not addressed the issue of corruption and the punishment of this administrations opponents through the use of the IRS, DOJ and Homeland Security.

Did you know that Homeland Security was used to protect the IRS buildings being picketed by Tea Party organizations? Do you feel that was justified? Why wasn't Homeland Security used to protect those being demonstrated against by OWS? Who is in charge NOW?Thank God there are people who read the newspapers in this administration, or else they wouldn't have a clue what our government is doing to us.

Can you tell us Chuck Less, where in history a people of a country gave up their liberty in exchange for the false security of a supposed benevolent government? Can you think of a country in which the government used its branch's and bureaucracy to attack and control it's real and perceived political opponents? Where the news media was being attack for disagreeing with the government? Or a country that scapegoated its opponents, current and past, in order to create a climate, "well it could be worse"? What country had its government send billions of tax dollars to those corporations it favored while admitting they were going to drive other corporations out of business? (Hint, think of GE and the coal industry)

America's greatness is not defined by how much it's federal government does for its people, as you should know by now since there is no such thing as a free lunch. America's greatness was because it's government USED to allow it's citizens to, on their own, rise to their highest level of achievement without government punishing them for doing so. Failure was accepted as a part of life, as was getting up and trying again. Note: I do not mean the exclude the 4% to 6% of American Citizens who are through no action of their own mental or physically unable to survive without the care given by state and federal government.

I blame liberals for the change of the definition of success in America.

Harley, when racism is present it's not "playing the race card" to mention it. And that is a stupid cliche anyway. Why do conservatives always talk in cliche?

And Chuck Morre's entoire last post is just a speech made up od cliche with no actual substance. Go figure. Chuck has also fogotten that 9-11 happened under Bush, and that his policies crashed the economy and ruined the country's internatinal reputation. I guess HE hets a pass because "he's not president anymore" and now we gat to BLAME all the crimes he comitted on Obama.The IRS has been looking at political groups of BOTH sides since Nixon. Ebassies have been attacked and people killed for decades.Presidents have been taking vacations since the beginning and have been using teleprompters since Kennedy. Suddenly when it happens under Obama they are SCANDALS. Why? Why has the House completely stiff armed averything the President proposes. That's NEVER happened before. What's different about Obama? Could it be....? Nahhhhhhh racism doesn't exist in America anymore.

First of all, I was (again) correcting ChuckLess on the facts. Not necessarily rehashing the racism issue.

Second, you mention racism only when it applies to white v. black racism. Curiously, it never gets mentioned otherwise – though it exists equally. And, on cue, Tom provided a perfect example in his following response of liberal mass confusion on the issue.

Finally, you continue to display your lack of ability to debate. Using the term “race card” is a cliché, no doubt. But, it is a particularly descriptive cliché used to communicate the fact that the issue of race is brought in unnecessarily and in an unwarranted way. Like you, indeed, did.

Still no examples of how my facts were wrong regarding the Cruz issue, either, by the way. Because you cannot find any… Step up.

Of course you do. You are indoctrinated to blame liberals for everything, even for what happened under Bush. Now it’s all Obama's fault for not fixing it, over GOP/corpo-dem obstruction and fealty to Wall Street, Big Oil, and Big Insurance.

All are over-represented servants of mammon loaded with “free speech” money, who by the way, benefit hugely from legislation they push, loopholes, tax breaks, trade agreements, and incentives. Therefore they are entirely blameless in the view of the "profit over people" Right.

Harley,

Most of this stuff has been going on for decades except NOW, when there is a BLACK (yes I said it) Democrat in the White house they are suddenly some kind of felony

What part of Mozart's sentence is not true?

Second, you mention racism only when it applies to white v. black racism. Curiously, it never gets mentioned otherwise – though it exists equally.

Not true. See Limbaugh telling millions about it. How about Glenn Beck with the approval of FOX(R) telling us Obama “hates white people”?

"Equally", you say? When were whites held as slaves by blacks? When did whites ever endure anything like blacks did in the segregated South?

You don't think there are continuing effects and consequences from that? It's all "equal" now?

At least you don't insist, along with Rush, that racism is only on the left, however supportive you are of the "reverse racism" being as bad as historical racism.

Although we've yet to hear anyone on the Right condemn Limbaugh. Just the usual dittohead parroting of "blame liberals".

I blame the servants of mammon and their politicians. Government policies are being twisted to allow short term private profit to always prevail over long term public good, aka constitutional "general welfare".

Do you really consider either of the President Bush's as conservative? If you do, there is the first place our communication starts to fail.

And for your rant against "corpo-dem obstruction and fealty to Wall Street, Big Oil, and Big Insurance" have you forgotten that Obama is the current President and that he has sucked up to the Labor Unions, and large corporations and banks and insurance company's? And have you forgotten that the ACA was passed in spite of the minority party (GOP) trying to stop it and it was crafted by the majority party (democrats), with the help of the a for mentioned Big Insurance buddies, that the failures of the ACA are 100% the fault of the majority party and it's President who signed it into law?

And why do liberals always talk in cliche's like BIG OIL and BIG Insurance and BIG Pharam? Please give examples of little insurance and little oil and little Pharma in order to be able to compare the difference between the BIG and the little.

It would appear that any question you can not or will not answer is defined by you as "inane loaded questions". Great way to dodge the debate, but not such a great way to prove your views are right.

Racism, do you on the left realize how weak your arguments would be if you were not able to paint those who oppose you as racist? Makes me wonder what it is you are hiding from to continue to use that tactic.

I love conservatives. So much fun to watch them make excuses "no mention of reverse racism anywhere", "Bush isn't president anymore" Bush wasn't conservative" BLah blah blah. Hilarious. It's especially fun to see people play Chuck Morre like a $2 banjo.

have you forgotten that Obama is the current President and that he has sucked up to the Labor Unions, and large corporations and banks and insurance company's?

Duh.

And you wonder why progressives call him a corporatist. Who’s been raking in more money lately? Unions or corporations? What’s happening to income distribution? Who’s is stagnant and who is reaping it in?

Who’s getting laws passed that benefit their agenda?

Well? Got answers?

I answered your question, What could possible go wrong?

But that’s OK. Right wing fanatics never answer questions, and never question their authoritarian leaders who tell them to blame Obama and liberals for everything. And they forget Bush the self proclaimed “compassionate conservative” ever did anything wrong. Except spend money and create debt on a war of choice based on lies for political gain and crony profit.

Speaking of poor memory:

Beck and Limbaugh have done everything to “paint those who oppose you”. See the quotes. Go ahead, I dare you. Now justify or condemn them. Or are “good conservatives” not allowed to do that?

Of course not. That would violate their indoctrination. Only liberals are bad, and are to blame for everything. Like Jews in 1930’s Germany. You think the IRS is the Gestapo? Just wait until the Right has a free hand to “punish” liberals.

We can only take Bush at his word, too, right?

In 2000, Bush ran on a “compassionate conservative” platform.

Bush is either a liar or a conservative. So which is it?

Well? No answer...again?

And speaking of poor memory, again:

Warrantless wiretaps were "legalized", and common, under Bush.

All of you in a fit over the Obama “scandals’ should understand the U.S. counter terrorism apparatus was used to monitor pro-peace groups under Bush and the Occupy Movement under Obama. The abuses under Bush are well documented, and only the rigid tea brains of the Right refuse to see it.

Your whining and outrage is empty, unless shared with those you disagree with on some things, but also warn of government intrusions on peaceful dissenters.

Who is getting the money from the stimulus bill? Remember when Obama signed it in 2009 he said it would put 400,000 people back to work rebuilding our infrastructure? Well, were did the money go? Where was the $ sent? Where was it spent?

"Right wing fanatics never answer questions, and never question their authoritarian leaders." That is a self serving, self deceiving lie! I refuse to entertain that you even have a clue of what you are talking about.

But that’s OK. Right wing fanatics never answer questions, and never question their authoritarian leaders who tell them to blame Obama and liberals for everything. And they forget Bush the self proclaimed “compassionate conservative” ever did anything wrong.

I was merely correcting your assertion that I brought the issue of race into the equation. Actually I said "race card" which got Mozart agitated. While Mozart's assertion is technically valid on the surface, the logic is flawed. His argument is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Thus my purposeful characterization of "playing the race card" - he was using a rhetorical device absent good logic to imply a cause that isn't always there - in fact, I'd say more often that not isn't.

Of course white racists hate Obama. They hate anyone with dark skin whether they are a waiter, an engineer, or POTUS. That doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that most conservatives (even Tea Party members) are not a fan of Obama's policies for reasons that have nothing to do with race. They attack him like they attacked Clinton. But, the attack can so easily be slanted simply because the person is of a different race. That's not fair and it is "playing the race card" - exactly as I communicated before.

Whether "historical" or "reactionary" racism are equal or not can be debated. However, the projection of racism on conservatives as a whole because some are is false and is a political device that will continue to be used by the left. I don't have to like it.

Lets get the FACTS straight about Obama and the alledged IRS witch hunt of the Tea Party:

It's GWB's fault.

The IRS did nothing wrong, they were actually HELPING the conservative groups by making sure that all their paperwork was in proper order.

What were the TEA PARTY groups trying to hide anyway? It was all the "corporate" money behind them that was evil, and the "pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow" IRS employees were just trying to root out these evil corporations spreading their ill-gotten gains to these anti-American tea-baggers.

Proposals to vet future US drone strikes risk creating "kill courts" according to human rights campaigners who say Barack Obama's promise of new legal oversight does not go far enough to end what they regard as extrajudicial executions.

The president has asked Congress to consider establishing a special court or oversight board to authorise lethal action outside warzones under a new counter-terrorism doctrine which he says will end the "boundless war on terror".

most conservatives (even Tea Party members) are not a fan of Obama's policies for reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Like many progressives also, and I agree, and have never suggested otherwise. However, the racist element is still there. If the Tea Party didn’t want that image, why didn’t their speakers condemn the “bone in the nose” and Hitler posters of Obama and other racist signs?

Not one Tea Party member expressed outraged overf those images. Why? If not overt racism, it certainly appears like tolerance and exploitation of it. The Right had no qualms about the “Pimp” deception to smear ACORN either.

Again, perhaps not overt racism, but it seems an accepted use as political leverage. Right?

Why was Beck’s accusation that Obama has a “deep seated hatred for white people” tolerated? Why no condemnation of Limbaugh painting liberals as racists? Not a peep. But listen to the howl of reaction from the Right when a liberal suggests the true fact that there are racists among them.

One side is clearly waaaay over-sensitive to this issue, while projecting such qualities upon the other.

It is abundantly clear the Right is reluctant to even recognize racism against Obama. Yet they’re very happy to accuse blacks and liberals of racism, usually for nothing more than pointing out the facts I have shown above.

is wrong, and I don’t see anyone doing that. It is clear, though, that the left is smeared exactly as you feel the Right is. See above evidence.

If Hillary wins in ’16 then we’ve had too many Bushes and too many Clintons in power. It would be further proof our nation is led by two competing gangs more concerned with power than serving America.

Have a happy and safe weekend.

==

Anonymous said:

Chuck less,GWB is in my opinion, neither. I refuse to be limited to your choices in selecting what I think something is or isn't.

Now, about my BIG and small question.

GWB is neither what? Are you referring to what you...er....I mean...”Chuck Morre”, was asked?

So GWB falsely represented himself as a “compassionate conservative” but is not a liar, and not a conservative? Explain please.

The correct answer to 1 and 2 could be “C” Both. One side wants more military and law enforcement, and the other wants constitutional general welfare and regulation of commerce. Or maybe “D” neither. Liberals might just want to keep, rather than dismantle, government services we have.

The idea of no racists in the Tea Party is absurd. They held up posters showing us.

my BIG and small question

Are you referring to what you...er....I mean...”Chuck Morre”, said?

And why do liberals always talk in cliche's like BIG OIL and BIG Insurance and BIG Pharam? Please give examples of little insurance and little oil and little Pharma in order to be able to compare the difference between the BIG and the little.

Well, maybe because they’re not clichés, as you...er....I mean...”Chuck Morre”, said, and there really are such things as Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Pharma.

I hope that addresses what you...er...I mean....”Chuck Morre” requested.

Tell you what Chuck Less, since I don't seem to be able to converse with you in a meaningful manner, why don't you tell us the answer you want to you GWB question.

I don't know about you, but I do not see the value in talking about a former President out of office for over 4 years. It gives the appearance that progressives/liberals/lefties have nothing good to say about current President who their majority supported in the last two elections so they focus on GWB instead. Is that what you are doing?

Now as what GWB is, I believe he is a BIG government Republican. During his 8 years he expanded the role of the Federal govt into areas that I can not find permitted by the Constitution. There are things he did (TARP) which I disagree with that effect us to this day.

Obama is a BIG Govt Democrat. He has expanded the impact of the Federal Govt into our everyday decisions, starting with health care, to our freedom to express descent of his policys. His administration's actions that are just now becoming public knowledge, have cast the shadow of BIG govt across our liberties, have not made the world a safer place, and have cost trillions in debt, with no visible return.

Next, your issue with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, is just that, it is your issue, not mine. I listen and Ed Schultz, Rev Sharpeton and Thom Hartmann. I do so because I want to test my beliefs against their positions. To date nothing they have said has caused me to change my positions. Can you say the same about Beck/Limbaugh?

Finally, I really would like to know examples of little oil little insurance, etc, as you are so opposed to the effects of their counter part, BIG. And if BIG is bad, whey do progressives/liberals/Democrats/ lefties favor the policy's of BIG govt?

I want to thank all the readers of Tom's blog, both liberal and conservative, for their service to our nation on this Memorial Day. Thank you for your service to our country!

First I want to point to three relevant and honest statements you made.

1. Do you really consider either of the President Bush's as conservative? If you do, there is the first place our communication starts to fail.

2. I don't seem to be able to converse with you in a meaningful manner

3. Now as what GWB is, I believe he is a BIG government Republican. During his 8 years he expanded the role of the Federal govt into areas that I can not find permitted by the Constitution. There are things he did (TARP) which I disagree with that effect us to this day.

Let me elaborate:

1. Your ideological litmus test is different from most Americans. Government itself tends to be conservative and slow to change. (It still classifies Marijuana as dangerous as heroin.) The Republican Party is the more conservative of the two major parties. Bush Jr. campaigned as a “compassionate conservative”. We can either take him at his word or call his claim false and dishonest.

His record is conservative in many ways. He appointed conservative judges and Justices. He promoted and funded “faith based” initiatives for only Christian churches. He gave the wealthiest people HUGE tax cuts. His stated second term goal was to privatize Social Security. His Justice Department screened only sworn conservatives for jobs. He appointed corporate insiders to oversight and regulatory positions. He fired a US Attorney for not pressing a groundless “vote fraud” case. He expanded surveillance powers of Federal law enforcement. These are all documented facts. More are out there.

None of this is characteristic of moderates. OK? If anything, his actions were that of a Big Government Republican conservative, unless you define conservative as only anti-government. Power corrupts and is never willingly relinquished.

2. For conversation to be meaningful, definitions must be agreed upon, or the discussion must become about definitions alone. If Bush said he was conservative, then any discussion must consider that fact.

3. Bush “expanded the role of the Federal govt into areas that I can not find permitted by the Constitution”. Almost every progressive agrees with this. And that power was passed to Obama, which makes Bush’s record very relevant. The Obama Administration is also no guardian of the Constitution. Sadly the same is true for most of the House and Senate. Again, power corrupts and is never willingly relinquished, and in this case that power is institutionalized. This is why we need a Supreme Court. Loyalty oaths to anything or anybody, apart from the oath of office sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, are extra-constitutional by nature and indicate a loyalty not to the Constitution, but to ideology. Every recent Administration has eroded our civil liberties. The war on drugs and the war and terror have been used as justification for some things our government should never be allowed to do.

Here’s the issue I have with Beck and Limbaugh. Far more Americans listen to Limbaugh and Beck than any progressive. Conservative media is pervasive and dominant on the air and on basic cable. MSNBC costs extra. FOX(R) does not. If Ed Schultz, Rev Sharpeton and Thom Hartmann said things as despicable and dishonest as Beck and Limbaugh I would also take issue with them.

So far the Right has never taken an opposing position to the above statements they uttered. How can that NOT be an issue? It indicates something the Right will not admit. Their hate mongers are out of control and have an effect on people who do not know better. This is why so many Americans think Obama is a Marxist Muslim who hates whites and America. This is shameful and sad for our country. It divides us purely for a political agenda.

Finally, I don’t see your point about “little” oil and insurance. The issue is the influence of multinational corporations, interested only in maximizing profit with no loyalty to our country or concern for the public good.

Why is Big Money worse than Big Government? Because the US Constitution provides for government to regulate commerce, not for commerce to regulate government. Big Money serves only its short term bottom line. Government is supposed be accountable to the people and to serve the public interest and promote the general welfare. We may disagree on what meets that standard and definition, but that’s why we have such a thing as compromise. Well, we USED to anyway.

Watergate was responsible for bringing down President Nixon because of his involvement and cover up of a botched burglary for political means. Nearly all of his previously-supportive Republican colleagues were ashamed of him and joined with Democrats in demanding his resignation.

The Benghazi debacle resulted in the possibly preventable deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador and two former SEAL’s that disobeyed orders to stand down and attempted to save him anyway. The Obama administration has since intimidated, threatened, and tried to cover up this issue. They even went so far as to blame a non-relevant video that no one had ever seen as the catalyst for the attack on 9/11. The Republicans are outraged.

Evidently, the Democrats have no shame though and unlike during Watergate are willing to stand by their corrupt president. The difference: no body died during Watergate.

The "Hopey Changer" crowd blindly march behind their smooth talking Dictator who now has found to be behind ordering the IRS to persecute people who oppose his anti American socialist policies much like the NAZIs prosecuted people who opposed them.

their smooth talking Dictator who now has found to be behind ordering the IRS to persecute people who oppose his anti American socialist policies much like the NAZIs prosecuted people who opposed them.

Fact: The IRS is required to determine whether organizations applying for special tax status are “social welfare” groups or are instead engaged in political activity. Political groups cannot get the special tax status these groups were applying for.

Fact: Only 1/3 of the groups that were passed to specialists for a closer look were “conservative.” Lots of other organizations were also checked, including progressive organizations.

Fact: No groups were audited or harassed or “targeted” or “singled out”. This was about applications for special tax status being forwarded to specialists for a closer look to see if they were engaged in political activity that would disqualify them for the special tax status. This closer look is the kind of review all organization should get, but the IRS was swamped because of the flood of groups applying for a status that let them mask their donors, after Citizens United.

Fact: No groups were harmed. There were delays while the groups were checked to see if they should have special tax status. That’s it. But the rules are that they are allowed to operate as if they had that status while they waited for official approval.

Fact: The only groups actually denied special tax status were progressive groups, not conservative groups. In 2011, during the period that “conservative groups were targeted” the NY Times carried the story, 3 Groups Denied Break by I.R.S. Are Named . The three groups? Drum roll … “The I.R.S. denied tax exemption to the groups — Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts — because, the agency wrote in denial letters, they were set up specifically to cultivate Democratic candidates.”

Fact: The IRS commissioner in charge at the IRS at the time this happened was appointed President George W. Bush.

Fact: According to the IG Report (p. 10) in the “majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention.”

"And that power was passed to Obama, which makes Bush’s record very relevant."NO IT DOESNT!!!Unless Obama continues to use that power. The first two years in office BHO didn't stop the growth of the Federal Govt power. The only thing that changed since then is his party does not control both Houses. And look at the posts and threads murdering the GOP because they are attempting to slow the growth of Big Govt under BHO!

If Obama does not continue to use the power, then the study of GWB is relevant only as an example of the growth of Government and it effects. Unfortunately, Obama has continue to use the power and has expanded it even greater than it was under GWB. Obama's doing so is not the fault of anyone but himself. He's in charge, he promised to change America, and he has with the expansion of BIG government, which I have yet to see a liberal, leftie, or progressive object to. Just as you, a self described progressive, are attacking GWB who is not longer in office while defending BHO who is in office. If you define a conservative as I do as one who politically opposed to a growing Federal Govt and the violation of our Constitution, then GWB was not a conservative, compassionate or not. Neither is BHO

If it is important for today's progressives to define GWB as a green man from Mars, so be it, but what does that have to with BHO and his administrations? Why do you defend him, as if it was out fear of being called a racist to not do so? You do realize that BHO is 50% white? And if GWB was not a conservative as you seem to claim, then why do your rally to BHO's defense? It is like the next poster who acts like it's important and damning that the IRS commissioner was a GWB appointee. SO what? The commissioners acts were either a violation of the law of they were not. He like, BHO had the power to do the right or wrong thing. To defend BHO with the claim that GWB was not a conservative just weakens you liberal position. Can't you see that?

Unless of course your support the expansion of the Federal Govt into all parts if our lives except two they haven't so far.

Sexual preferenceAbortion rights

Only question I have is why not these as well?

This is why I used this quote of A. Lincoln to answer a question of Mozart."No many has the right to choose to the do the wrong thing." This still applies today.

he(Obama) has with the expansion of BIG government, which I have yet to see a liberal, leftie, or progressive object to. Just as you, a self described progressive, are attacking GWB who is not longer in office while defending BHO who is in office.

Maybe you didn’t understand what I said. Read this again:

Bush “expanded the role of the Federal govt into areas that I can not find permitted by the Constitution”. Almost every progressive agrees with this. And that power was passed to Obama, which makes Bush’s record very relevant. The Obama Administration is also no guardian of the Constitution. Sadly the same is true for most of the House and Senate. Again, power corrupts and is never willingly relinquished, and in this case that power is institutionalized.

That is not “defending Obama” by any means. Can you comprehend the notion of warrantless surveillance of Americans as unconstitutional? It’s your belief system and false image of progressives that tell you I am defending Obama. I condemn him for supporting Bush’s FISA Amendment allowing such surveillance. I condemn him for continuing the Bush Administrations’ abuses of power.

If you define a conservative as I do

No I don’t, and neither does most of the country. Did you not read my numerous examples of Bush’s conservatism?

You seem to define conservatism narrowly as only being in favor of dismantling government. Even constitutional government. If you mean only unconstitutional government action, you would have more agreement. I think Bush and Obama each share blame for ignoring the Constitution. If you insist that is “defending Obama”, oh, well. There’s no reasoning with you.

If it is important for today's progressives to define GWB as a green man from Mars, so be it, but what does that have to with BHO and his administrations?

Former adviser to the President Austan Goolsbee was accused of looking into private tax records of White House critics. An IG investigation of the matter was completed two years ago but has never been released. Ten days ago, on Twitter, Goolsbee announced it was all a big mistake.

Austan Goolsbee is an economist who served on President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. He became involved in a potential scandal when his comments on a conference call appeared to demonstrate some inside knowledge of Koch industries tax structure. The Weekly Standard, which broke the story, quotes Goolsbee as saying “in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses…” Portions of the same comments were also reported in a Wall Street Journal story

No. I resort to factual information: Under Reagan, federal employment increased by 200,000.Under Obama, federal employment increased by 38,000 (thru 3/12).Federal Job Creation Average per year in office

During his 8 years he expanded the role of the Federal govt into areas that I can not find permitted by the Constitution. There are things he did (TARP) which I disagree with that effect us to this day.

Any reasonable person would conclude something that would “effect us to this day” is clearly relevant.

And I agree: "And that power was passed to Obama, which makes Bush’s record very relevant."

So then you vehemently asserted: NO IT DOESNT!!!

True to form, when a progressive or Democrat agrees with a “good conservative” the “good conservative” must quickly reverse his position and disagree with his previously stated case. This is a classic example of Obamacare in a nut shell. The individual mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans.”

It had “good conservative” origins, yet upon acceptance by Obama it suddenly became “socialism”.

Then you qualified: Unless Obama continues to use that power.

Obviously he has.

Find some other boogie man to blame for losing your liberty to our growing Big Government.

So tell us where you are “losing your liberty” solely because of Obama. What loss of liberty are you suffering that is not a direct consequence of Bush’s permanent state of war, warrantless surveillance and expanded police state power under the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and other measures?

Is it the health care? Is it Obamacare that is oppressing you? Have you lost your liberty to a health care program? Are you a target of a “death panel” or some other sinister scheme? Are you oppressed by the Heritage Foundation’s idea being implemented?

Or are you oppressed and have lost your liberty to the restored tax rates? You were once oppressed, then free, and now have lost your liberty again? Is that it? Or are you oppress and have lost your liberty to the national debt? Not debt incurred by Bush, but only that of Obama? Is that it? Did you know Obama’s deficits are down from what Bush’s were?

You get a grip.

I’m pretty sure I “have a grip” on this.

We’re still not sure where your grip is....unless it’s all about the black Marxist Muslim boogie man who’s to blame for everything before and after what Bush did. That’s some “grip” you have there.

Sounds more like a gripe than a grip. A gripe with just a tinge of...ah...let’s see...how to put it....”boogie man”....”not racist”....er....um.... yeah.

Let me help with your grip. Everything, and everyone, a “good conservative” says is liberal is bad by default. Everything and everyone a “good conservative” says is conservative is therefore good by default. And only “good conservatives” are allowed to define and dictate what is liberal and what is conservative.

Does that cover it?

I think so. There we have it; a nice simplistic world view for you to grip. One might even say it is a black and white world view. It accounts for the politically correct sole, black Marxist, Muslim “boogie man”, enemy to all that is good and decent about America. This way there is no need to concern one’s self with all the conservative acts of Bush and the non-liberal acts from said “boogie man”.

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Our next topic, Bishop E.W. Jackson, Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Virginia. Jackson has no experience as an elected official, but he does have a history of making factually incorrect, inflammatory, anti-gay, anti-Obama statements. He could fit right in with the right-wing. Take a look at this video message he posted last year.

BISHOP E.W. JACKSON: The message to Christians in the black community: it is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat Party…The Democrat Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions. Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Dyson, what’s going on here? Is this an attempt to make this Ken Cuccinelli, this year's Republican nominee for governor, look less extreme, because he’s a hard righty too? What about this?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, the philosopher Jay-Z had it right. We don't believe you, you need more people. We don't even know you. You pop out of nowhere. The Republicans seem incapable of making any kind of planning. You're talking about Oklahoma where they won't even have $12.9 billion for disaster mitigation because they didn't want to study.

Planned Parenthood is not about abortions. It's about cervical cancer screenings. It’s about breast cancer screenings. And it's about planned, teaching people how to be parents. Now here you got E.W. Jackson puffing up, and here’s a guy who’s a black puppet. He’s a vent, he’s being ventriloquized. His mouth is moving but white supremacist ideology is floating through it, and the most repressive sorts of ideas that we can imagine are being evoked here. Black people are not dumb. Just because you put a black face on buffoonery, we still know the color of ignorance.

Just because some "good liberals" offers an opinion doesn't mean we must accept it as truth, like you obviously do.

My mail is still coming. That's not a "failure". Bankrupt due to union and stupid govt work rules

Social Security is still providing retirement and other benefits. That's not a "failure". Give it time.

Medicare is still providing health care for people in need. That's not a "failure". GIVE it time ,AHC hasn't fully effected it yet

Funding needs to be adjusted. But that's not failure. Ted Kennedy said when Medicare was signed into law, there would never have to be any 'adjustments" in funding. W

Even the IRS is doing its job. Pissing off Right Wing fanatics is not failure. It's just how the fringers choose to react. See facts above. Violation of Constitution not a failure in the minds of the left wing nuts like "c"

De-funding or privatizing such services would indeed lead to failure. Not for the wealthy private managers, mind you, but for the people who would lose public services.

There you go, finally, the real reason for BIG Federal Govt to exist, to keep getting larger, it's to prevent someone from getting too rich. Got to lower the playing field, not level it, but lower it. Right "c"?

Well well, looky thar. Somebody was incapable of debating Chuck Less, so he had to steal his name too. Just like he did from the original Chuck Moore.

Stivic/Harry/Anonymous/Morre/ and now Less. Hilarious. It is hysterical that he thinks he's so clever, fooling no one and making a fool of himself.

When defeated by logic, facts and reason, Righties need to change the rules and the game. Very mature and "responsible" doncha think?

But its OK if "good conservatives" do it. Right? They have "values". Honest is not one of them. So what?

Radical Righties are incapable of playing fair, aren't they? This is why their authoritarian leaders are waging open war on democracy by doing everything they can to reduce voter turnout. This is why NOT ONE OF THEM HERE criticize Limbaugh and Beck for race baited lies.

NOT ONE.

And they're shocked, shocked when we quote a Republican admitting his party is full of racists.

Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists.

It's also quite telling that our troll awkwardly tried to show I was simply offering opinion against his ah, well opinion. Unfortunately for the simple mind, he needed to include facts I gave. What does a Rightie do with facts? He wants do dismiss them of course. Instead of discussing a functioning reality of the present, he invents a scary future failure.

Yep, and those scary death panels are on their way to sentence "good conservatives" to death.

Yup, Yup.

Then we see the typical wrapping the of Constitution around their extreme ideology.

So did we get a thoughtful and researched post on how Social Security, Medicare, the IRS, and the Post Office are un-constitutional?

Ha. Of course not. In fact they are constitutional according to the Supreme Court. Even Obamacare.

"Boo hoo" the wittow babies cwy as they throw tantrums.

Cry us a river of those "compassionate conservative" crocodile tears.

At 7:20 PM,
“Just the Facts”, formerly “C”, and formerly the original “Chuck Less” said...

You seem to jump to conclusions.

Projected by “Anonymous/Stivic/Harry/Morre... and now Less”.

Let’s see. That’s at least five identities this cowardly little troll uses. Could it be a multiple personality disorder?

Chuck E Cheez"POST OFFICE - failed"No, the Postal Service's bottom line (which, with changes in technology, does have some issues) was sabotaged by government. How many businesses have to prefund the retirement health benefits of employees that they don't even have yet? One: the US Postal Service (Critical passage: "The PAEA stipulates that the USPS is to make payments of $5.4 - $5.8 billion into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, each year, from 2007 to 2016 in order to prefund 50 years of estimated costs.", emphasis mine)Read that again: "You have to fund the health benefits of all retired employees, including those that you won't be hiring for another twenty years, and you have only ten years to do it (and, also, you can't raise rates or expand your business to raise revenues to pay for it. At all)."

"SOCIAL SECURITY - insolvent"The problem isn't the money. The problem is that the Greenspan Commission raised extra money over the past few decades to build a buffer for the retirement of the Boomers, money that was loaned to the rest of the government as bonds (covering holes in deficit spending), and now that the checks are coming due nobody wants to pay more in taxes to pay back the money that was raised and spent.

"MEDICARE - insolvent"Medicare's problems aren't Medicare's problems. That's a misleading framing. Medicare's problems are healthcare in general's problem. And Medicare's costs are going up more slowly than privatized healthcare despite covering the most expensive demographic (and, it should be noted, a demographic that, without Medicare would not have coverage at all, you monster.).

"OBAMACARE - costs continue to skyrocket, doctors will quit"The ACA is an attempt to "bend the cost curve" of healthcare. It's a terribly flawed, cobbled-together, nibbling-around-the-edges approach. It's also fighting perception, from people who like what's in it as long as it's not called Obamacare, a party that's against it even though the major ideas in it were their own ideas in the first place (see: Universal Mandate) and, worst of all, that's defenders are Democrats.As such, it will have both failures and successes (the latter, here) and, if history is any guide (see: the fights over any social program in the USA ever) it will both destroy the country and will not destroy the country.

"EDUCATION - costs continue to skyrocket, scores continue to plummet"Cost will keep going up as long as the students keep being so stupid. That's just common sense.

"AMTRACK - failed"Did you know that city buses run at a loss, too? It's almost as though their raison d'etre for mass transit is something other than profit… (and don't get me started on that socialist Eisenhower and his interstate highway system!)

Chuck Less"Ted Kennedy said when Medicare was signed into law, there would never have to be any 'adjustments" in funding."Exercise: Compare and contrast medical care in 1965 and 2013. Discuss.

SOOO, According to MOTHER JONES, Blacks are the only murderers, rapists, pedophiles? Sounds very racists to me! Better have the IRS do an audit. And the DOJ investigate for racial profiling. NO wait, cant do that, the AG is investigating himself. Wonder what the results of that will look like. GWB, and Citizens United are to blame for his own illegal actions?

And from Mother Jones no less. Not Limbaugh, Beck, GOP, Tea Party, etc, but Mother Jones. Maybe Modusoperandi is correct, Mother Jones is counting on it's readership to be stupid.

Modusoperandi, tip of the hat for your last post, best open minded one from you in a long time. Well thought out. Thank you.

Regarding medical care costs in 1965 and 2013, it doesn't matter what the costs between 1965 and 2013 are, Kennedy believed the Federal Govt had created a plain that would keep costs down and Medicare funded, regardless. It hasn't happened. Is it possible that the increase in cost since 1965 is due in part to the expansion of Medicare coverage and inclusion to include those who are not or have not paid into the system?My personal experience with my parents both who have lived or are living into their 90's, indicates that due in part to Medicare, Americans are living longer now that they did in 1965. Unintended consequences of Medicare? Which is totally ok with me. However, does this create the problem of a smaller base of revenue source that is funding a expanding group of recipients? Which requires either an increase in funding from the smaller base, or a reduction of Medicare benefits to the recipients.

There have been arguments that the AHC act is, intended in part, to reduce Medicare benefits thereby reducing the average lifespan of Americans, there by keeping the fund solvent. Hence the concept from it's opponents of "death panels". Because I have a parent in their 90's, I have no comment on that possibility.

My view is that Medicare while a wonderful and grand compassionate concept at it's start, was flawed because it failed to:

1. Understand the unintended consequences of longer average life span.2. The inevitable expansion of any govt program to: a. address more needed with out any way of funding. b. use the expansion as a way growing a political base. c. the natural course of any bureaucracy to exist for it's own benefit. d. the conversion of an idea for medical care plan into a persevered Constitution right. e. failure to have an exit plan if the original plan starts to fail.

The solutions offered so far are either cuts in spending or increase in funding. I would suggest consideration be given to rolling back the eligibility standards to those of 1965 as the best place to start.

LIE, assumption, lacks proof to support. Uses charge of opponent being a racist to stifle debate,

Looks like more canned outrage for a reaction. Typical.

Maybe this statement is based on experience and knowledge of fellow Republicans. That’s right, this was said by a Republican. And just who was the “opponent” of this Republican?

We need the wisdom, virtue and values of “good conservative” Anonymous to clear this up for us.

So what do we have here, another Republican liar? Then Republicans would logically be either liars, racists, or a combination of both, right?

Same deal with self identified “compassionate conservative” GW Bush. Liar or “compassionate conservative”? Obviously “Neither” is an illogical answer, especially in light of lies about Saddam and Iraq. Bush represented himself

as a “compassionate conservative”. If he’s not, then logically he would be a liar. Right?

How about this one?

"You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."

And this one?

"How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people."

Is Rush a liar? Not one “good conservative” will address these statements. Why is that? One thing for sure, racists have no problem with it.

And this one?

"a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture...This guy is, I believe, a racist." Glenn Beck on Obama

Not one “good conservative” will address this either. Why is that? One thing for sure, racists have no problem with it.

SOOO, According to MOTHER JONES, Blacks are the only murderers, rapists, pedophiles?

Mother Jones said that? Or did a liar say it about Mother Jones?

Just the facts, please.

At 1:38 PM,
"Just the Facts", formerly the Original Chuck Less said...

Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, another Tea Party group that has complained about the scrutiny it received from the I.R.S., sent out regular e-mails to members about Romney campaign events and organized protests around the state to “demand the truth about Benghazi” when Mr. Obama visited before the 2012 election. The coalition also canvassed neighborhoods, handing out Romney campaign “door hangers,” Mr. Zawistowski said.

The I.R.S. usually considers such activities to be partisan. But when Mr. Zawistowski consulted his group’s lawyers, he said, he came away understanding that the I.R.S. was most concerned with radio or television advertising. He said he believed that other activities, like distributing literature for the Romney campaign, would not raise concerns.

“It’s not political activity,” he said.

Well, there ya go. Those poor Tea Party groups, oppressed by the “Gestapo’ IRS, are “not political” after all.

Anonymous"How come cost will keep going up as long as the students keep being so stupid? You can not fix stupid. Weak, very weak"Okay. How about this: Is education getting worse? No. Is per student spending out of control? No. Most states are cutting.

Chuck Morre"And from Mother Jones no less."1. African Americans form a disparate proportion of the prison population.2. Convicts eventually become ex-cons.3. Ergo, ex-con African Americans form a disparate proportion of the not-in-prison population.How long after serving their time should no-longer-convicts be punished, anyway?

"Modusoperandi, tip of the hat for your last post, best open minded one from you in a long time. Well thought out. Thank you."Obviously. I'm pretty awesome. Also, pretty.

"Regarding medical care costs in 1965 and 2013, it doesn't matter what the costs between 1965 and 2013 are, Kennedy believed the Federal Govt had created a plain that would keep costs down and Medicare funded, regardless. It hasn't happened."It should be noted that Teddy wasn't psychic.

"Is it possible that the increase in cost since 1965 is due in part to the expansion of Medicare coverage and inclusion to include those who are not or have not paid into the system?"I don't know (although everyone who has worked, and paid FICA, has paid in to Medicare, not everyone pays in more than they get back). How much extra does Medicare's expansion into, say, covering ALS patients and hospice care cost? How about you do your own research?Also, no. Things that were rare are now common. Modern hip replacements and modern pacemakers (previously being rare and unreliable or rare and enormous, respectively) only started in the '70s. And things exist now that simply did not exist in 1965. Heart transplants, for example, most of which are performed in the US, only started in '65, and all kinds of surgeries, techniques, diagnostics and treatments are newer than that (see: diagnosing and treating cancer). Hospitals used to be used for (and this isn't as much of an exaggeration as it sounds) delivering babies, car accidents and dying.

"Which requires either an increase in funding from the smaller base, or a reduction of Medicare benefits to the recipients."It's not either/or, and you're forgetting efficiencies (providing the same service cheaper).

"There have been arguments that the AHC act is, intended in part, to reduce Medicare benefits thereby reducing the average lifespan of Americans, there by keeping the fund solvent."They haven't been good arguments, however.

"Hence the concept from it's opponents of 'death panels'."Ten times "No!". Death panels came from Sarah Palin "reading" the Act, finding the (previously bipartisan) section on paid-for end of life planning with your doctor every five years, and decided that was Death Panels (note, too, that she was for it before she was against it). It's pure demagoguery and, much like the "Obama cut $500B from Medicare!" (where the "cuts" are things like getting Medicare Advantage insurers to bid competitively, opening biotech to generics, or smoothing out the wildly varying prices for similar things in different hospitals, for just three examples) it's as toxic to public discourse as it is dishonest, and it's plenty dishonest (piling on, the "cuts", for example were so bad, so awful, so terrible that the GOP ran an election, in part, being against them while simultaneously standing behind the Ryan plan that kept most of them, putting them back a year later only when enough people found out that they couldn't waffle on it anymore. Hell, Romney lambasted Obama for cutting Medicare and for not cutting entitlements in the same paragraph of one of his speeches).Healthcare has problems. They can be nibbled around and cobbled over, which is what happened, because those problems cannot be fixed in a two party system where one party bathes in rancid nihilism and the other party has the crippling fault of being Democrats.

There is one problem with the entirely justified if self-interested media squawking about the Justice Department’s snooping into the phone records of multiple Associated Press reporters and Fox News’s James Rosen.

The problem is that what the AP reporters and Rosen did arguably violates the letter of the law.

The search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Section 793(d) says that a person lawfully in possession of information that the government has classified as secret who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime. That might cover Rosen’s source.

Section 793(g) is a conspiracy count that says that anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime. That would be the reporter.

It sounds as though this law criminalizes a lot of journalism. You might wonder how such a law ever got passed and why, for the last 90 years, it has very seldom produced prosecutions and investigations of journalists.

The answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, passed two months after the United States entered World War I. In his 1998 book Secrecy, the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells the story of how it came into being. Congress was responding to incidents of German espionage before the declaration of war. In July 1916, German agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in New York Harbor. The explosion was loud enough to be heard in Connecticut and Maryland. The Espionage Act was passed with bipartisan support in a Democratic Congress and strongly supported by President Woodrow Wilson, also a Democrat.

Wilson wanted even more. “Authority to exercise censorship over the press,” he wrote a senator, “is absolutely necessary.” He got that authority in May 1918 when Congress passed the Sedition Act, criminalizing, among other things, “abusive language” about the government.

Wilson’s Justice Department successfully prosecuted Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate who received 900,000 votes for president in 1912, for making statements opposing the war. The Wilson administration barred Socialist newspapers from the mails, jailed a filmmaker for making a movie about the Revolutionary War (don’t rile our British allies), and prosecuted a minister who claimed Jesus was a pacifist. German-language books were removed from libraries, German-language newspapers were forced out of business, and one state banned speaking German outdoors.

It was an ugly period in our history. It’s also a reminder that big-government liberals can be as much inclined to suppress civil liberties as small-government conservatives can — or more so.

Does that make the law racist because it impacts one group that breaks the law more often than other groups? No it doesn't. The problem in this case is not the law, but the law breakers. Or should the law only apply to non blacks and that would make it not racists?

"It should be noted that Teddy wasn't psychic." Duly noted, but that doesn't relieve him from being wrong in his forecast, does it.

Do illegal aliens receive Medicare? Has Medicare broadened its scope of coverage from when it was created, or has it not?

"forgetting efficiencies (providing the same service cheaper)." Sorry I haven't seen any "efficiencies" from or in Govt programs. If that were the case, who do their budgets go up every year? Why does government need more money each year from the previous to operate? If big govt is efficient, wouldn't other things that are big also be efficient? If more people require a service and there are fewer people funding that service, what level of service can be maintained? Regardless of who used the term death panels, is not important, what is important is how health care will be rationed to the population? How does Canada decided who gets what care and how fast? I do not know, but as they are next door, lets use them as an example. Anyone?

"I have a dog who is awful pretty or some times he is pretty awful. That's all I have got to say about you being or not being pretty awesome or pretty'F. Gump

Chuck Morre"Does that make the law racist because it impacts one group that breaks the law more often than other groups? No it doesn't. The problem in this case is not the law, but the law breakers. Or should the law only apply to non blacks and that would make it not racists?"For how long after someone has paid their debt to society should we continue punishing them?Also, and I should've mentioned it before, but when you get your pages from Weaselzippers, Newsbusters, Dailycaller or whatever, go to the page they're talking about and read the whole thing (in this case, here, and the CBPP page it refers to is here). Then compare and contrast it with how it was presented to you (compare what it was with what Breitbart's, for example, intended narrative of it was).I should note that I'm not reading racial overtones in this, nor do I think Vitter intended there to be (he's not that smart). I'm reading it as poor-baiting.I should also note, because few stories mention it, but SNAP mostly covers people with children (it's tough or impossible to get it without them in most states), so banning ex-cons from the program is really cutting off children who happen to have an ex-con for a parent.

"Do illegal aliens receive Medicare? Has Medicare broadened its scope of coverage from when it was created, or has it not?"No (although, via FICA, those that are paid over the counter pay in). And yes, from ALS and hospice care to Medicare Advantage.

"If that were the case, who do their budgets go up every year?"In this case, it's mostly because healthcare in general gets more expensive. Healthcare in general has some of the fastest rising costs of anything. Within that, Medicare (and Medicaid) has costs that rise slowest (as in, slower than privatized healthcare). Medicare Advantage, if memory serves, sits in the middle.

"Regardless of who used the term death panels, is not important..."It is important. That shows how one side in the debate is not arguing in good faith.

"...what is important is how health care will be rationed to the population?"Yes, but (again) the important debate over where the line is can't be had when half the arguees are just looking for talking points (like "Death Panels") to attack the other with during the next election cycle.

"How does Canada decided who gets what care and how fast? I do not know, but as they are next door, lets use them as an example."And by "lets" you mean you want me to research it for you, right? Do you have any idea how inconsiderate and aggravating that is?(Spoiler Alert: Canada's socialized healthcare, cost-wise, isn't that good, sitting in between the more cost effective nations in Europe, ie: all of the them except the UK and perhaps Switzerland, and the cost ineffective one of the USA. As with most socialized systems, it's pretty good at emergency medical and not very good at non-critical medical care, eg: moderately fast at reacting to heart problems, but with waits for things like hip operations. Also, since each province has leeway within the system of federal standards but provincial administration, coverage, waits, costs, and general competence vary by province)